Welcome > GrogHeads Feedback

Question about content

(1/1)

Jarhead0331:
I've been looking at a lot of reviews from a bunch of websites lately and I've noticed that many of them just suck. They are relatively brief and light on detailed, useful information. I just can't bring myself to write something like that for this site, or any other I have ever been associated with. I always try to be extremely detail oriented and thorough. Of course, the drawback to this is that reviews of complex games are very few and far between because I just don't have the time to devote to playing AND then writing.  But maybe my approach is wrong. Maybe I should accept that not all reviews need to be a five volume treatise...

So, how do you guys prefer your reviews? Go vote!

W8taminute:
I voted for balanced however let me add some more detail to my answer. 

There are times when a game review should be semi-balls deep.  For example if we're talking about a game like Stellaris (which I own) I would like to know more about how ground combat works as well as how much control do I have over it.  I'd want the reviewer to give me all the juicy details about space combat as well.  Finally the  more detailed review on the economy model of the game would be all that is needed for a mature gamer to decide if the game is a buy or die deal. 

Other games like Civ 6 (which I don't own) just need to give enough detailed info on each aspect of the game.  Maybe a little comparison to earlier games in the series would be helpful as well. 

I think what it comes down to is that each of us have a deep interest in one or more particular nuances of certain games that if we could just get a decent review on in enough detail we could decide if we buy or not.  Detail should be more of a 'how to do certain things in some cases' not a PHD doctorate paper spanning thousands of pages which basically tells me nothing about the game I'm trying to figure out if I should buy.  For a thesis paper may look damn impressive and bring credibility to a site it does nothing for me to help me know if I would like the game or not.  Just tell me how stuff is done, and without opinion of it's good or not because let me decide.

Gusington:
Hard to argue against going balls deep...

But with that said, it takes me a long time to go balls deep, like 20-30 hours depending on the game, so at times when writing I break up a longer review into 3-4 parts.

Just a look from a writer's perspective.

IICptMillerII:
Agreed with Gus. The problem with extremely detailed and deep reviews is that it takes a really long time to produce the actual review.

I prefer more depth and detail, especially if it is something that I am considering dropping money on, but at the same time I think it would be silly to have to wait upwards of a month or more for a review on a game on whether I should buy it or not.

Of course, sometimes it can take a month of playing a game to know if it is actually worth it or not. I think there is a fine line between lots of detail but too late, and too little detail but super early.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

Go to full version